Existing laws make Proposition 2 redundant

Published 6:00 pm, Tuesday, November 1, 2005

Not that I didn't already know this amendment would beckon the vote of the people this year, I was more irritated with the fact that Texas voters were again voting on the issue of marriage.

Let alone the reasons why Texas should have marriage equality, but the fact that we already have laws on the books regarding this topic makes the whole idea behind Proposition 2 moot.

Passed by the U.S. House and Senate, President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996, prohibiting federal recognition of same-sex marriages and giving the states the authority to pass similar laws and to clarify the state would not recognize such marriages performed outside its borders.

Then, on May 27, 2003, Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed the DOMA into law prohibiting the state from recognizing civil marriages and unions from out of state.

In the 2004 elections, gay marriage was used as a wedge issue by conservative leaders, resulting in the passage of yet more constitutional amendments in 11 states and to the introduction of House Joint Resolution (HJR) 6 by Rep. Warren Chisum in Texas.

HJR 6, upon approval this summer, became the third piece of legislation in response to the defense of marriage, but this time not only targets members of the gay and lesbian community but could also threaten straight couples joined in common law marriage thanks to overly broad language.

As I stood there at the charcoal-gray eSlate terminal in the Barbara Bush Library, Proposition 2 staring back at me, I had a lot of things to think about knowing all I do know about this amendment.

Since when did anyone make it right to turn our Texas Bill of Rights into a vehicle for hate, intolerance and discrimination? For over a hundred years, it afforded rights to all Texans and now they want to use it to bar people from something they already cannot obtain?

Secondly, if our state legislators could get this unnecessary proposition out to voters as effortlessly as it seems, why couldn't they find the time to do something positive like find solutions to school finance, property tax reform and health care for Texas children?

Finally, what do you suppose this piece of legislation really is about, seeing as how there is no denying the fact that we already have laws making marriage a one man-one woman institution in this state?

In my opinion, Proposition 2 serves as both a chance to slap the gay community in the face once more while providing a brick wall to hide the fact our state legislators could not, would not and did not turn out anything meaningful for their constituents this session.

The preservation of marriage is a noble cause, but if it already has the necessary protection it needs, why continue with this issue?

It reminds me of a nesting egg. Marriage is enclosed in the middle, with many layers already protecting it from the outside world, and here comes Proposition 2 ready to cover it again. Enough already! Marriage has been preserved, legislation wise!

Want to preserve the sanctity of marriage? Target Britney Spears-type marathon unions and work on the 53 percent divorce rate heterosexual couples alone have contributed to modern-day America.

But, don't send us, legislators, and don't accept, readers, some piece of legislation that is mean-spirited, redundant and unnecessary.

From the time it took to introduce, discuss, debate, hold hearings, sign and type this proposition into the eSlate machine I found myself staring at last week, we could have had found a new way to finance our schools, made sure the next generation of Texans are getting the health care they need and capped the property taxes plaguing homeowners across Harris County.

You may now cast your ballot.

E-mail Brandon De Hoyos with your comments or questions at bdehoyos@hcnonline.net.